Is THEM Guilty of Shirk? - Dr. Wesley Muhammad

Salaam
Bro Dr Wesley Muhammad
3.] Dr Wesley Muhammad - Response to Bro Mubaashir Uqdah – Part II
I am sincerely thankful for this opportunity to dialogue in the best of manners over such an
important topic – tawhid –with such erudite and, most importantly, sincere and honorable brothers, Bro
Mubaashir and Imam Salim Mu‘min. I appreciate the cordial and non-accusatory spirit in which they
welcome my views and engage them, even though not everyone viewing and commenting on this
exchange shares this spirit. In this regard I must correct something I said in my previous post (Part I).
When challenging Bro Mubaashir‘s presentation of Imam Ahmad‘s aqida, I suggested that he was
‗misrepresenting‘ the Classical Arabic/Islamic Tradition. Likewise, in challenging his reading of the
Qur‘an and Sunna, I suggested that he was guilty of ‗misrepresenting‘ these. ‗Misrepresent‘ was an
unfortunate choice of terms, as it implies the intent to mislead. I do not at all believe this term, with that
implication, applies to my brother Mubaashir. I believe he sincerely represented these as best he could
with what he has been blessed to know. The problem with the ‗representation‘ of these sources that he
provided is not him – he faithfully articulated the orthodox representation. The problem is with the
authors of this orthodoxy; the ulema of Mecca and Medina, Cairo and Tehran, and throughout the
Muslim world, many of whom have indeed consciously misrepresented the Tradition and its sources. I
humbly apologize to my brother Mubaashir for this mischaracterization of his intentions.
I must, unfortunately, offer a second apology. I thought I could conclude my Response in two
parts. However, as I re-read Bro Mubaashir‘s Review, there is just so much in it worthy of discussion, and
more importantly there is so much there that compels a response. I therefore had to delay my response to
his discussion of Surat al-Ikhlas (112) and Surat al-Shura (42):11 until Part III, because the arguments he
presented in his Argument 2 section must be addressed.
With that being said, it appears that Bro Mubaashir failed to comprehend my arguments as laid
out in that Philly lecture. This is evident, for example, in his ―Argument 2,‖, where he suggests that the
―basis‖ of my claim that Prophet Muhammad‘s (s) God had a body and was a man was hadith reports
mentioning God‘s hands, face, feet, throne, etc. This is not the case, however. While I do mention the
Ayat al-Sifat or Qur‘anic verses that make mention of Allah‘s face (wajh), eyes (ayn), two hands (yadayy), ect.,
I did not hang my argument on these. And while I did cite the Abd Allah report from the Prophet
concerning al-Dajjal and his one eye, versus Allah‘s eyes, I did not cite it as evidence that Allah is a man
but as one piece of evidence of the Prophet‘s own tafsir of the Ayat al-Sifat. More on this below. No, the
reports upon which I relied to make the case that Allah has a human-like form (sura, not jism) specifically
mention Allah‘s form, sura. I mentioned the famous sahih hadith in which the Prophet declared: khalaqa
Allah Adam „ala suratihi, ―Allah created Adam according to His form‖ (Bukhari, 8.74.246; Muslim, birr, 115;
Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, II:244, 251, ect.). That the possessive pronoun hi refers back to Allah was affirmed
by the Salaf. I quoted in Philly the great scholar Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1358), who in his Naqd
al-Ta’sīs, 3:202 reports:
―There was no disputation among the Salaf of the first three generations that the pronoun (hi/His)
refers to Allah, and it is narrated via many isnads from many Companions. The contexts of the
hadith reports all indicate this…(B)ut when the Jahmiyya became widespread in the third Islamic
century a group began to say that the pronoun refers to something other than Allah…They were
denounced by the imams of Islam and other ulema.‖
21